Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 280 active users here.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

Proposals[edit]

Bot approval requests[edit]

Approval request for new bot task[edit]

I'm requesting approval for UnderlyingBot (talkcontribs), operated by me. The bot would execute two tasks, both exclusively relating to An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language:

  1. divide the OCR text into sections (as in this diff) and
  2. create new subpages based on those sections (like this one).--Underlying lk (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please refer to WS:BOTS to see what items are needed in a request. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    • purpose: fixing common errors in the OCR import of the work An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, such as Tentonic -> Teutonic, and make it more easily proofreadable by humans, more in general;
    • scope: pages about the Etymological Dictionary exclusively;
    • programming language or tools: pywikibot, mostly the replace.py script;
    • degree of human interaction involved: both automated and semi-automated.--Underlying lk (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
Point 1: I am fine with it (with the comment that it would be good to include as many replacements as possible in a single edit). BTW, you might find pagefromfile.py quite useful as well.
Point 2: technically you should do it once pages are Proofread unless there is a special reason for that.— Mpaa (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
About point 2, the subpages are already there by now. The bot will be responsible for applying automated fixes to the OCR text.--Underlying lk (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to see you document in your bot user space the replacements that you are undertaking. Having such available is always useful for next time around. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I made a list of the regex replacements here, and will keep it updated when it changes.--Underlying lk (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will set the bot flag.— Mpaa (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Flag set.— Mpaa (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

Statutes at large Missing pages[edit]

Index:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large - vol 6.djvu Index:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large - vol 8.djvu

Both of these volume seem to be missing a blank page and the first the page of the 'List of Titles', would it be possible for 2 blank pages to be inserted after the nominal title page, and any contributions on these volumes to be shifted accordingly? Thanks.

I have no idea where replacement scans might be found, Neither Google or Hathi Trust have an exact match for the specfic edition (although Hathi Trust has some volumes of a much later edition by Charles Runnington, that may enable a 'reconstructed' page to be made if someone want to do a lot of image work :( ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would rather use the blank pages at the beginning. When replacements are found, they can be swapped. The rest can be left as is.— Mpaa (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Index:Coloured Figures of English Fungi or Mushrooms.djvu[edit]

Can someone swap the scans for Page:Coloured Figures of English Fungi or Mushrooms.djvu/1102 and Page:Coloured Figures of English Fungi or Mushrooms.djvu/1101 which seem to be in the wrong order? and swap the transcription on those pages as well? Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Done.— Mpaa (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
ThanksShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Statutes at large, a different approach...[edit]

No lengthy arguments needed but in deprecating a template (that was for technical limitations never ideal.), this was implemented Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large_-_vol_3.djvu/100, because it isn't possible to cleanly implement the original layout in web form . I will note that other than {{frame}} it's only using existing templates (or footnotes), not some over-complicated half-baked attempt to get it exactly like the print layout (a critical view from certain other contributors). Whilst the logical intent of the original is followed, given that "annotated" copies are generally disliked, I wanted a second opinon. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think your layout does justice to the demanding, idiosyncratic formatting of the source text even if it doesn’t perfectly duplicate its visual appearance on the page. The marginalia serve their purpose as annotations to the original text whether they appear in sidenotes or at the bottom of the page, and I have a feeling that when multiple pages are transcluded together in the final version, the use of footnotes will make the finished product much easier to read. I find the box produced by the {{frame}} template a little distracting and I’m not sure it’s really unnecessary, although it does call attention to the presence of easy-to-overlook content that the reader might have been expecting to see in the sidenotes, which is at least somewhat beneficial. In time, I hope the annotations can be linked up with the content to which they are referring. Tarmstro99 13:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Well I used {{frame}} as I wanted to box out the sidenotes from the run of the original text, it's style can be tweaked if needed. Cross referencing an entire work like this would be a BIG project, which you are welcome to attempt. (Noting of course that: Whereas many early Statutes, having been long since expired or been rendered void, as such have no official "Short-titles" applied for convenience of citation, and although various Acts have since subsequently applied official "short-titles" for the convenience of citation, many of the aforesaid statutes without short titles as included on English Wikisource, the said included Statutes have had unoffical short-titles applied on Wikisource for convenience, &c. ) you'd probably need a law student or academic specialist to have definitive titles. See the notes here for the official ones: User_talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive1#Acts_that_confer_short_titles. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
yeah, good work. i would go for a broad consensus for either going left sidenote or even ignoring sidenotes, and converting some to footnotes. if we get an end product with more readability, that is an improvement. while we strive to replicate the layout of the original, we should not be wedded to it, to the point of stopping progress as "too hard". Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Changes to numbers of "link" templates in author ns:[edit]

I have been migrating the suitable internal link templates to utilise Template:authority/link as the base, generally used for reference works. I think that I have captured all the quirks and variations that have occurred in the templates, though ask users to check the author ns: pages, when passing, to look for new irregularities in display. Any problems or suggestions for a particular template should be noted on the respective talk page of the template, and users can feel welcome to ping me. Similarly if you need templates developed for your reference work.

For suggestions for the base template, please note those at Template talk:authority/link. I still need a better way to notate in the documentation that there is a base template, and as templates are created for these reference-type works that the base template exists.

The migration to utilise a base template allows for consideration of additional fields to existing templates where considered pertinent, and further development of better standardised/coding. It should provide potential for better data extraction capability and manipulation due to being standardised.

Notes
  • templates that only had positional parameters, will now also have named parameters for those fields
  • templates utilise <onlyinclude> to tighten display components; the display generally shows minimum requirements of required parameters
  • in changed templates the old code has been left and rem'd out—feel free to delete those components when comfortable that the job has been done successfully
  • there is an extensive set of testcases in the base, and each template is documented for its uses and variations of parameters
  • Template:authority/lkpl exists for the lkpl-type templates
  • Template:article link does a similar job for periodicals.
To do
  • Work out what to do with the DNB stuff, that is non-standard
  • Continue to find those hand-coded references and run a bot through and convert them (if you have these, please list them at Wikisource:Bot requests)
  • Templatedata should be added, and identified that much documentation can be improved

If there are any questions, fire away.— billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have based also {{CE lkpl}} on the lkpl base template (hopefully correctly). Not sure if it was skipped intentionally, so I report it here.— Mpaa (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on page issues on mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Short-titles" and related...[edit]

The review of internal link templates previously has been noted (in relation to Author pages), If there is a wider review of link templates underway I'd like to politely request that {{short-title}} and {{topic-link}} also get reviewed as part of this.

{{Short-title}} in it's current form will not scale well, and currently would be unable to cope with disambigs between short-titles used to distinguish between otherwise identically titled works in different jurisdictions. It was however converted to a Lua module which may make it easier to maintain.

The issue of short-titles is not just about the template however, given that Wikisource seems to be use a combination of both "official" short titles (directly mentioned in legislation.), widley known but not necessarily official 'short-titles' based on a long-title or widely used name/title, and unofficial short-titles seemingly derived from subject descriptions in Chornological Tables.

To the extent that it's ever possible to have one standard on Wikisource, it would be nice to have ONE standard, and be able to tweak any relevant templates/module to that standard so that as new Acts get transcribed redlinks turn blue without additional effort. On the other hand I am more than willing to throw the whole thing out and hard-code relevant links, which would be simpler, but create more effort when "missing" items in redlinks were added.

{{topic-link}} is not widely used outside one highly specfic work. It was originally written with works that in print are essentialy a specialist index with page numbers. In main space the transclusions would be to anchors in an article page, whereas in Page namespace: they would either suppress of be references to other pages. It could be argued that the template is too complex, and should be abandoned in favour of coding only for mainspace use, suppressing in the Page: and other namespaces.

Given past concerns, I felt these issues needed a wider discussion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Two very similar disambigs: Moon & the Moon[edit]

Too tired to be reasonable in my decision making. Would someone be kind enough to look at and resolve Moon and The Moon. We did have an earlier discussion that we would look to not have such similar disambiguation pages. Thanks if someone can. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've merged the two.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree. FWIW, I believe the result of the previous discussion was to not have separate disambiguation pages where the only difference was "A", "An", or "The" in the title, although lengthy lists might be subdivided. In this situation it's certainly a short list and not worth keeping them separate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A Lost Lady[edit]

I cannot remember which person here was compiling a list of works which will enter PD in the US next year. Please remind me who you are!

Also, please add A Lost Lady (1923) by Willa Cather to your list of such works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've got the list at Wikisource:Requested texts/1923. A Lost Lady is on the part of the list copied from w:1923 in literature.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Thanks. I've added a play translation by Murray, a novel by Edith Wharton, and a collection of poetry by E. E. Cummmings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A little off topic but we/I do this every year at bibliowiki:. E.g. bibliowiki:Bibliowiki:1968 deaths, therefore now in the Public Domain. If the mystery user wants to work together on PD issues at en.ws and bw, that would be great. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the US, so I'm going to put most of my time into 1923 works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Great. You're probably familiar with this already but in case you aren't, Public Domain Review publishes a "Class of [Year]" every December. E.g. https://publicdomainreview.org/collections/class-of-2018/Justin (koavf)TCM 22:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a little bit of a bigger deal in the US than elsewhere, since the PD cutoff has been frozen at pre-1923 for a very long time. In January 2019, that will advance to pre-1924, which is the first cutoff advance in the US in a very long time. One consequence of the frozen cutoff is that works published in 1923 generally aren't available through Gutenburg, IA, Hathi, etc., except in cases where a work can be "checked out". I'm assuming you're in Canada, so you might be able to help us get a head start scanning the works of Willa Cather, who died in 1947, so that all her works went into PD for most countries outside the US at the beginning of 2018. However, because she is an American author, many of her works have not been scanned. A Lost Lady is a novel for which there is no scan available in IA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Oh yes, it is a huge deal in the States. I'm kind of surprised Disney didn't swoop in and buy some legislators yet to extend it, tho we're trying with the century+ copyrites on music proposed. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
A Lost Lady is available in Gutenberg (1) and HathiTrust (2, 3, 4), although the scans are currently locked. Hrishikes (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
We'll have to wait until sometime next year to see whether the scans at Hathi are of good quality, and to determine which edition they are. Gutenburg texts too often have editorial issues for me to trust them anymore. I'd rather see a high-quality scan made fresh from a first edition, if we can get one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Author:Sylvanus Urban, he was and he wasn't; disambiguate? portal?[edit]

Sylvanus Urban was for 100+ years the editor/publisher/writer of The Gentleman's Magazine. We are right that it was initially Author:Edward Cave though as he died mid 18th century, it is doubtful that he was still writing "Table Talk" in The Gentleman's Magazine/Volume 271. As it became an eponymous for the editor, we can disambiguate it and point to all the editors by years, or we can convert it to a portal. I am favouring the disambiguation, though think that a collective opinion may be better. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

EnWS should unlock Mein Kampf and My Struggle.[edit]

"Existing translation identified as being copyright until 2039 in United States." does not justify this protection. Everyone in Wikimedian could translate Mein Kampf. Moreover, It's dubious that Muphy's translation is copyrighed in United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2d8:e070:a11d::9ee:90a5 (talk)

Please see Wikisource:Translations, which states our policy regarding Wikisource created translations. One requirement is that "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation". Since there is no German-language original backed by a scan on the German WS, a user-created translation is not currently within our scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It's noexitence in German wikisource is due to cencorship law of Germany. Wikimedia oppose censorship. THERES A PDF VERSION OF GERMAN LANGUAGE VERSION OF MEIN KAMPF.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2d8:e070:a11d::9ee:90a5 (talk)
I don't see any reason why Murphy's translation would be out of copyright in the US. I'm not really sure what the copyright status of Mein Kampf is in the US; it has a renewal, though questionably timely, and whether or not Houghton Mifflin had the right to file for renewal? It will be moot in a few years, as a work published in 1925/1926. If agreed to be PD and published on wikisource.org, which will publish US PD works the German Wikisource won't, we could start a translation here. But translations aren't nearly as trivial as you suggest, and I don't know of a successful Wikisource translation of a work this long, and this one looks to be a mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Our main namespace is for published works, and there is no public-domain, published English-language version. It's continual re-creation meant that the pages were locked. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Excerpting stories from long subpages[edit]

I'm working on Italian Popular Tales, a project that had been mostly stalled since 2012. The bulk of the work is translations of folktales, interspersed with commentary, followed by endnotes (some of which are very long, including one or more numbered tales themselves). There seems to be about a dozen of these tales that have articles devoted to them on Wikipedia, on one of which I've placed a link back to the text here: w:Thirteenth (fairy tale). As you can see the link is to an anchor in the middle of a very long subpage. My question is, would it be advisable to make supplementary transclusions for individual tales that would be easier to link to from Wikipedia and could be entered into Wikidata? Or should the long subpages simply be broken up? Or should translations pages or redirects be used? I would greatly appreciate any advice. — Mudbringer (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not make supplementary transclusions. I would either use anchors as currently used, or break up the subpages into sub-subpages, using {{AuxTOC}} as necessary (example). If each tale can be considered a work per se, and it seems like they can be in this case, then I would encourage creating translation pages or redirects regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: thanks for the suggestions. Splitting into sub-subpages would be of limited usefulness since many of the stories are in the endnotes, sometimes more than one story in a single endnote. I've made a translations page for Thirteenth and recorded that in Wikidata. So now I'd like to ask, should links from the Author page (in this case Author:Giuseppe Pitrè) and the Wikipedia pages preferably go to this translations page, or straight to the location on the book's subpage? Also, I linked the title of the tale on the book's subpage to the translations page, which seemed to be the most obvious pathway to the related Wikipedia and Author pages. I'll need to put a note in the header explaining what the links are for. — Mudbringer (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
A {{translations}} page has typically been to disambiguate multiple works, so historically we would not have created such a page and listed one item. [That said that practice/approach eventuated prior to WD when we have coordinated interwikis, and to where we would indeed place the interwiki for the conceptual item.] In the examples that you provide, if we are not going to separate transclusions, I think that this methodology is the means to find the balance. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-25[edit]

21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Plain sister and bibliowiki[edit]

I have updated Wikilivres visual presentation through {{plain sister}} (template and module) to now be Bibliowiki. I think that I got it working fine, please report any problems back here and ping me. Thanks. I think that completes the presentation space. There are still mentions in templates, and editors should feel comfortable in changing parameters to use bibliowiki, and again if any problems, please report back here. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Lint filter fix for float right, somewhat counter-intuitive—others check/replicate?[edit]

I think that I have found the solution to {{float right}} pages showing up in the lint filter. Starting the span containing "float right" at the start of the paragraph, before all the text to which it will float, and it seems to resolve from my couple of trials. If others confirm that is the case, then we can have another tick for our resolution processes. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Could you provide some specific examples of what you're describing. I don't follow what you're saying, and believe it might be at odds with situations where float right needs to be at the end of a paragraph for dramatic works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"New texts" -- reasons[edit]

I think there's a great deal of thought that goes into the decisions we make about what works to transcribe, but it's largely invisible, both to us Wikisource editors and to the world at large. I imagine that reasons might vary from "my dad loved this book, and I always wondered why" to "I think it's important to civilization that more people read this essay" to "this poet's style is mostly forgotten" to "this is a horrible and misunderstood piece of propaganda, and I think everybody should have the chance to evaluate it themselves."

I'm curious if others might like to see a few words -- or perhaps a field for a link to a page in user space -- under the "new texts" section. Perhaps an optional field.

Do others share this curiosity about our fellow editors' reasoning? Are there other ways we could make it more apparent to our readers or one another? Apart from technical requirements or layout considerations, what do you all think of finding a way to make this more visible? -Pete (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This sounds to me more like something to be printed in a newsletter than something to be linked in the New Texts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be some form of discussion at Template talk:New texts. I think OP was pointing towards something more akin to the kind of process used on the WP main page, for example the Did you know section. Whether we should copy that (or do something even remotely similar) is of course debatable, but that particular example is in itself a "rough starting point", since the purpose of both pages/templates seems to be "To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's [or in our case, Wikisource's] corpus of articles [...];". 198.84.253.202 03:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit size/'wrong diffs"?[edit]

Can anybody explain what this is? The only change I actually did was add the </poem> tag which was missing at the end. Yet, for some reason, the page history shows a change of -114 bytes, and the diff of course shows the addition of quotation marks (") around the section begin and section end tags, which oddly enough are not even on the page, there's simply a ## hymnal85 ## at the top. 198.84.253.202 03:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The hashtags are the "wiki-friendly" display form for a section start. The sudden drop in page size may reflect some hiccup from the last time the page was edited. From time to time the system seems to vastly overestimate the size of a page, and a subsequent edit returns the size to its correct value. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
My guess is that the website back end software (MediaWiki) changed how they calculate the length of pages since 2013, and editing old pages that uses the header/body/footer format will cause the incorrect size difference. And the additional quotes is probably how MediaWiki wants to represent the section tags now which isn't visible on the edit page except through the hashtags. So 198.84.253.202, it's nothing to worry about, you didn't remove any text. --Riley AJ (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't worried, just curious. By my (short) investigation, the earliest edit which I can confirm beyond all doubt has this kind of page size change is from December 2013 (-116 bytes), while the latest edits I can find which don't have it are from September 2013 (+82 bytes). Of course, that is from a very small sample (with only sporadic activity). I haven't bothered to check further to see if the date can be pinpointed more accurately. A browse through the archives looking for "size" does not yield anything about this between October and December of that year. Overall, a minor change which seems to have been mostly unnoticed. 198.84.253.202 05:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Changes in how proofread page operates means that some code that was there is redundant and was removed with that edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

OCR for Persian[edit]

Hey librarians! I know that it is not the right place to ask this but I’m not sure I could find an answer in another place. Is it possible someone could turn on Google OCR for the Persian wikisource (fa.wikisource.org)? We are in desperate need of that. Now the users are taking pictures of the pages and upload them to their Google Docs. Then import the pages into a Google document, and then Google OCRs the picture. The precision is so good that it's worth the hurdle. But the process is long. Can anyone help? --Yousef (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yoosef Pooranvary: Add this line in your Mediawiki:Common.js:
mw.loader.load('//wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:GoogleOCR.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
--Hrishikes (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: is there a proper way to use it on two columns documents ? like Index:An Ainu-English-Japanese dictionary (including a grammar of the Ainu language).djvu ? Assassas77 (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Assassas77: See Google ocr result on this page. -- Hrishikes (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, the OCR does help a bit but the result must be edited to be split in two column then. Okay ! Assassas77 (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Thank you. It works well. --Yousef (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviations in reference works[edit]

Is it acceptable to expand abbreviations when transcribing reference works such as dictionaries? I know that ideally we would try to be faithful to the source material, but some entries have so many abbreviations as to be unintelligible out of context (see diff).--Underlying lk (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No. We strive to present works as they were published. Mass altering of text would not be desirable. However, once the original text exists here in a scan-backed form, it is reasonable to then add a separate copy of the work which has been "annotated", such as by expanding the abbreviations. Draft policy of this can be found at Help:Annotating, but there isn't much there. The key points to note are (1) there should be an original, unannotated copy here first, and (2) that the annotated version should make it clear that the text is annotated. For example, calling it "My Book (annotated)" or "The Annotated My Book" (where 'My Book' is the title of the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Underlying lk: As EP said, no, we wouldn't; it doesn't represent the work as published, AND it just makes it harder to accurately proofread. That doesn't stop us from doing a couple of things. 1) If there are not very many, we can transclude them into the notes section. 2) If they are expressed on a list on a page, putting a wikilink into the notes section that points to the abbreviations. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Follow-up. I see that we have Page:An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language.djvu/21 and Page:An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language.djvu/22 pages that would we would transclude to "name of work/List of Abbreviations]]" probably as a separate page, so typically when we build the transcluded pages we would have a header note "see [[../List of Abbreviations/]]" as this sort of relative link that is such a pointer. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, adding a link to the abbreviations surely can't do harm.--Underlying lk (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for some time. How about adding the expanded word in tooltip form, as {{SIC}} is used for example, we could have the best of both worlds. When you hover over the world it will give you the full word.Jpez (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice idea, but there would be hundreds of thousands of tooltips required across the whole dictionary. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Lippincott pdf files[edit]

I have downloaded several pdf's directly from google. I would like to begin uploading them but was encouraged to come here to check on protocol and first pages and the like.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: pdf files are not as obedient as djvu files when it comes to transcription, and Google has a shocker of an additional front page (and one that troubles Commons-netizens); which is why we initially and normally push files to InternetArchive then use toolforge:ia-upload to bring in a djvu without the horrid front page. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I don't think they are there, with the exception of one of them. The tool to strip the first page is ia-upload, isn't it?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: If you can point me to where the netizens have complained, I might be able to handle their complaints when they come for me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not about winning the argument, as we have beaten it to a standstill, and currently looking for a tool to resolve, so it is preventing the further occurrences of the problem, preferably. Yes, IA-upload is the upload tool that enables the removal at the upload phase. PDFs can be problematic, greatly more so than djvus. We developed the process to this solution as it worked better. Lived and learned experience. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
One half (that is a guess, not calculated -- it might be closer to one third) of the djvu I have gotten from ia have ocr pages missing or are off by one or two or more pages. I try to be as picky as possible about raw materials, but am hesitant to put the documents through another electronic sieve. I truly would like to read a or the discussion which is one of the advantages of 1) a wiki and 2) people working together. To increase my own knowledge and understanding and also to know the user names of the people who find this important enough to discuss.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
DjVu is a free and open format, produces small files optimised for text, and works with the software. Any problems with a djvu file probably results from poor scans, like the 'needs more jpeg' google file conversions out there. There is an essay Wikisource:DjVu vs. PDF, and some of the related discussion in links to that page, but sooner or later users come to the same conclusion. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is about files that are just not worth converting. Very few images. The OCR is fine enough. I am not going to argue ever for pdf over djvu. The extra step to convert pdf into djvu because djvu is a more preferred format is a different matter.
Instead of this, cygnis who used to have that annoying statue on your page, we should be discussing Lang.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: This is exactly why we upload good files to archive.org. 1) there is another persistent source, esp. out of Google where half the world can be blocked; 2) they are in a bigger array of file types, including JP2 for better image extractionl and 3) we convert them to DJVU through ia-upload. we see that extra step as winning. Additionally as housekeeping we also get the opportunity to get uploads in {{book}} format, rather than {{information}} which is waaaay more useful when creating an index page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: is there a specific problem with one of my upload, <pages />, and installing the transcription file into the main space? I made a book template and pasted the information. It is easy if you don't use that stupid wizard. There were mistakes (in the book templates edited paste) but those were fixed at the commons when I found the first page. Also, they all point to the same wikidata entry. That is really the thing that is not right and iaupload doesn't know anything about that.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
All my commentary has been generic about our processes from our lessons learned, nothing specific to your actions. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-26[edit]

23:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

œ with circumflex[edit]

I need this ^ + œ character (as it appears in the 'immer' entry on this page) but I cannot find it anywhere. An attempt to type it by using ^ as a modifier also failed. Any help is much appreciated.--Underlying lk (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

We have a {{unicode}} template that's supposed to handle Unicode letters, but I can't get it to handle a letter that needs to be composed. You'd need U+0302 (the combining circumflex) and U+0153 (the oe-ligature). --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Underlying lk: How is it: œ ^ ? Hrishikes (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The correct Unicode character is œ̂ or œ̂ (which should be the same).--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
That works, thanks!--Underlying lk (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Customise the User option page.[edit]

Hi,

When editing pages I recently noticed that there is a empty User option page found at the bottom of the drop down list.

I often find myself changing between the Wiki markup and Accents or Ligatures options etc., is it possible for me to edit and customise the User option page to combine my frequently used Accents and Ligatures etc?

If so could you please point me to the instructions for doing this?

Thanks --Sp1nd01 (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You can customise it by creating "common.js" as a subpage to your user page. If you search in the User: namespace for "charinsertCustom" (or just search everywhere) you can see how it's done and perhaps get a few ideas. — Mudbringer (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the information! I've found and copied your common.js and customised it a little, and it looks like its working exactly as I would like. Looking through some of the other common.js scripts I see there appears to be a lot of other customisation possible. I will probably take a look through some of those other options and have a play now that I am aware of them. Sp1nd01 (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Postponement of the deployment of the New Filters on Watchlist[edit]

There was a recent announcement about the plans to graduate the New Filters for Edit Review out of beta for this Wiki. It stated that the deployment would happen by late June or early July. Since that announcement, we received feedback about a performance issue related to the change which is being actively worked upon. As a consequence, the deployment is postponed until further notice. Sorry for the inconvenience caused, if any.

Please let us know of any other issues or special incompatibility that you may face so that we could make sure they are solved before the feature gets deployed. Thanks, Kaartic (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Page status issues[edit]

I seem to be experiencing issues when viewing the page status in most indexes. As far as I can tell the issue began for me yesterday.

Many pages are not displaying any colours at all or are only showing the correct status on some of the pages.

I have done a hard purge and a standard purge of the pages numerous times as well as reboot, and I also see the issue using an alternate browser. (I use Firefox and Edge) I even dual booted into Ubuntu and see the same issue.

e.g. a project I am working on with the issue is Index:Life with the Esquimaux - 1864 - Volume 2.djvu

Is anyone else seeing the issue? or can provide any help on how to resolve this?

Thanks Sp1nd01 (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it happens randomly to me on various Index pages. I just do a Null-edit (alt-shift-0 on Firefox) and it displays properly. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
this has been going on a while Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2009-12#Stale_page_link_coloring_on_index_page? could not find a phabricator ticket. i've turned on Adds a "*" tab or a "Purge" option gadget for a null edit tab. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, the null edit does reset the status for each individual page, but not when I try it on the main Index (The overall status page view). I guess I have to Null edit the whole set of missing status files to clear that issue.
I also noticed in the page activity following a null edit that it is showing quite a large diff, although it reports no change. i.e. Page:Life with the Esquimaux - 1864 - Volume 2.djvu/44‎; 10:56 . . (-119)‎ - Is that anything I should be concerned about?
Appologies, I wasn't aware this was a long ongoing issue, it just seemed to start for me yesterday, its been fine for the year or so I've been editing here. It's not a major issue for me, I can work round it now, thank you for the help and info. Sp1nd01 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed it today too (my last activity was the 21st, and I didn't notice it then). To be clear: I've been experiencing all pages displaying without status for a long time, but it was solved with a purge on the index page. Now what I see is that some apparently random pages (not all) appear without status, and it doesn't change with a purge. The status bar at the top of the main namespace seems to be correct Jellby (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I also noticed this nasty problem today for the first time! I had been working for a couple of days on a small group of books only. And now that I want to come back, after a little bit less than a month to this index, for instance, I see that a lot of pages are non-coloured, although they are proofread already. The same for this index, which has the same problem to a very large extent. I'm sure that I worked on it at June 12th, and that the problem did not happen then. The suggestion given to load a "white page" and save it, whithout any edits, gives the page its colour, in the index indeed. But that is of course very much work, for a complete book. So what can we do to solve this? --Dick Bos (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Should be OK now. I 'touched' it to refresh it.— Mpaa (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you for that, @Mpaa. This sounds like magic. But, there are (many) more indexes to bewitch! Like:

and so on, and so on (and we have the same problem on the Dutch Wikipedia as well). So can you please explain what you have done (if it is not too difficult to understand for a non-technical person), and do you know anything about the cause of this strange problem, and about a structural solution? --Dick Bos (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dick Bos: The same conversation is at WS:Scriptorium/Help. I have started a bot run to resolve these, ahead of the technical semi-fix. Doing ps:0 and ps:4 to start. I have recently put a note to nlWS offering to have the bot run through that wiki, though the bot or any other with task will need bot rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Addendum. Please refer to the "Tracked" template top right of this section for the Phabricator ticket with all the (gory) detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Tidy to RemexHtml[edit]

m:User:Elitre (WMF) 14:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-27[edit]

00:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Transclusion problem: only three pages, then it's broken[edit]

In Tales from the Arabic/Table of Contents of the Calcutta (1839–42) and Boulac Editions the preview gives:

Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. 

and the page is broken. Is there anything I can do to fix it other than simplifying the code? unsigned comment by Jellby (talk) .

You will probably have to code the TOC as a table, without using the templates. The TOC templates make the page look pretty, but they place a huge strain on the software. It's one reason I don't use them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
yes, the dotted line templates are memory hogs. for simple TOC s, i use tables with https://tools.wmflabs.org/magnustools/tab2wiki.php , for complex indents, i use the Template:TOC row 2-1-1 family. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Is there any way to affect column widths (especially first and last) with the {{TOC row 2-1-1}} family? Jellby (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
indirectly, by using line breaks like <br>. (and look at how others used the template for examples [12]) keep in mind our work floats at multiple zooms and screen sizes, so layout will be approximate - when i get frustrated, i go do some simple pages. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jellby: If you look at the source of the page, at the end you will see report like


NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw1276
Cached time: 20180703174918
Cache expiry: 1900800
Dynamic content: false
CPU time usage: 0.948 seconds
Real time usage: 0.996 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 15153/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 2097152/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 20153/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 11/40
Expensive parser function count: 1/500
Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
Unstrip post‐expand size: 605704/5000000 bytes
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400
Lua time usage: 0.330/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 1.75 MB/50 MB


Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00%  831.552      1 -total
 70.94%  589.917    264 Template:Dotted_TOC_line
  9.13%   75.924      1 Page:Tales_from_the_Arabic,_Vol_3.djvu/279
  8.42%   70.016      1 Page:Tales_from_the_Arabic,_Vol_3.djvu/272
  8.35%   69.434      1 Page:Tales_from_the_Arabic,_Vol_3.djvu/273
  8.15%   67.778      1 Page:Tales_from_the_Arabic,_Vol_3.djvu/278
  8.08%   67.160      1 Page:Tales_from_the_Arabic,_Vol_3.djvu/276
  6.91%   57.492      1 Page:Tales_from_the_Arabic,_Vol_3.djvu/275
  6.51%   54.118      1 Page:Tales_from_the_Arabic,_Vol_3.djvu/281
  6.47%   53.815      1 Page:Tales_from_the_Arabic,_Vol_3.djvu/271


{{dotted TOC line}} is one of the experimental templates that doesn't manage its constraints of "Post‐expand include size". The template is a complex beast that many of us cannot untangle, so we don't use it. I wouldn't be thinking about a typographic reproduction, as suggested I would think that a suitable representation of the ToC is sufficient. Personally I just code as tables, and ignore dot leaders. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

maybe we should have a "help:table of contents" page, maybe at Wikisource:Style guide/TOC. dotted template is a snare for the typographically scrupulous, and not our consensus. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer to delete and remove the template. FOR EVERY LINE OF USE it inserts a TABLE with five DIVISIONS. It is overkill for the intended purpose. People getting too damn inveigled in the look of a work, and not in its reasonable presentation. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
As a novice editor who has recently used the ToC style template, and not being aware of the pros and cons of the numerous templates in use on the site, when I can't find guidance in the help documentation, I tend to try and follow an existing style I have seen or browse through the templates for something which seems to be appropriate. I would certainly appreciate a Wikisource:Style guide/TOC showing a recommended approach. Sp1nd01 (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Using {{def}} to expand scribal abbreviations[edit]

Does this count as an annotation under WS:ANN? Just wondering what other editors think about this type of markup. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It is an interesting example to consider, I would waver between a number of possible approaches and principles if I was transcribing. The notes in the work say this, "The Saxon characters and abbreviations may for the purpose of this collection be read thus, though not critically correct in each instance", at Page:Christmas Carols … /327. I would also be interested to see what others thought, or have done in similar circumstances. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd think it better to offer a separate version in modern orthography, instead of adding that many notes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it would be better, but I'm not sure that it's required. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
When the same form appears repeatedly in a carol, wouldn't it be better to mark just the first one? In most cases I don't think the abbreviated forms are any more difficult to recognize than obsolete spellings such as "cyte" or "nyzt". My personal preference would be to provide a clean transcription, and a cross reference to an edition with modern orthography. This edition seems to have most of them. — Mudbringer (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-scheduled deployment of the New Filters on Watchlist[edit]

There was a recent announcement about the plans to graduate the New Filters for Edit Review out of beta for this Wiki. The deployment was stalled to fix the performance issue related to the change. The performance of the new interface has been improved significantly as an outcome of the work by the developers [13]. So, the deployment has been re-scheduled. The deployment is scheduled for this wiki on July 16th 2018.

Please let us know of any other issues or special incompatibility that you may face so that we could make sure they are solved before the feature gets deployed. -- Kaartic (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

section problems[edit]

i have been going through old encyclopedias adding sections, i.e. [14]. however, it appears the wikieditor is converting the section tag to "##" and then breaking them, [15] making subsequent edits much harder. this is a recent problem. is there a work around? Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've always used the double-hashtag notation, as I find it easier to use. I believe there is (or was) some setting in the Preferences to adjust how sections are treated when editing, but cannot find it at the moment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
it is wrapping the initial ## in nowiki, [16] forcing section tags to save sections ; turned off "easy LST" gadget, but problem remains for me. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It worked fin when I edited just now, but I think the problem may have been that you had two separate "s7" sections (one of them I changed to s6). The duplicate section name may have been causing the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
no, it is a wikitext editor setting that is so opaque, i cannot undo - i.e. [17] i guess i will stop saving any page with a section tag. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Check your "Gadget" Preferences settings. I have checked "Easy LST: Enable the easy section labeling syntax in the Page: namespace" on mine under Page namespace options. Do you have this activated? It could be the issue. This is the setting I couldn't locate before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
no dice. all editing gadgets off = same problem. the wiktext editor is highlighting the initial ## in blue and preventing saving as a section tag. it also loads previous section tags as ## and then breaks them. this is in firefox and chrome. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm also using Firefox, so that at least doesn't seem to be the issue (at least not on its own). Are you using AWB or some other editing tool? I tend to edit manually and don't get highlighting. If it's an editing tool issue, I won't likely be able to help with solutions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For your two identified links when I am viewing them in standard editing mode, I am not seeing any issues with the pages, ie. no breakages. Can you please edit some more pages and save so we can have some actual diffs. I am wondering whether it is just your editor rendering things incorrectly, rather than the output generated, though don't have enough data to make a credible opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

here is a snip of edit window Page:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 7).djvu/44
Wikisource section failure in wikitext.png
and as saved Page:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 7).djvu/47
Wikisource section failure in saved.png
i expect it an obscure wikitext setting. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
When I was fixing up lint errors in some of my old sectioned works I found that using the page migration tool by itself worked fine, but if I clicked preview it messed it up.... MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
ok, i found it - in the edit toolbar. there is a "syntax highlighting" button that toggles on and off. i do not recall turning that on. and in addition to highlighting it adds some nowiki code. do not recall it working that way before. sorry about the drama, very obscure. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Blackletter and the transclusion limit[edit]

Is there a way to deal with large lists of alternating Blackletter-normal words without incurring into the transclusion limit? I have split the list into five different subpages and there are still too many instances of {{bl}} to display all the content.--Underlying lk (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not with the template the way it is. It has a "switch" in the coding that balloons the computing power needed for the template. To preserve the look of the text, you'd probably need a simpler version of the current template that was coded for use only in Kluge that could work with far less code. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
If anyone else runs into the same problem, I created {{Blackletter light}} (even though it didn't fully solve the issue in my case).--Underlying lk (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have it be a large span and then unset the non-blackletter parts? MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would prefer that we simplify {{blackletter}} (back) to doing its simple job well, removing the kruft. For the vast bulk of what needs to happen it doesn't need the baggage. If there needs to be a more complex form, then we build that separately. We can clean up with a bot. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
After reading Wikisource:Style guide/Orthography I decided to use the Blackletter font in the Page namespace, and remove it elsewhere.--Underlying lk (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"Technical administrators" are coming: we need a plan[edit]

For those of you who are not aware of the ongoing consultation at Meta, a change is coming which will affect who can edit CSS and JS pages in the MediaWiki: namespace. A new group called "technical administrators" will be created and only they will be able to do this. Important quotes from the consultation page:

"By default, bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant group membership to users, the same way it works with admins. How to appoint new technical administrators will be left at the discretion of each local community (or the global Wikimedia community if that community creates a global policy through the usual means)."

"A new set of permissions (editsitecss and editsitejs) is being introduced to MediaWiki; to edit a .css or .js page in the MediaWiki namespace, both the old editinterface permission and the corresponding editsiteXXX permission will be needed. Admins and other user groups who currently have editinterface will receive the new rights for a short migration period (so that the transition can happen without any disruption) but eventually won't have them, and the software will enforce that no other groups than technical admins can have it."

"After this consultation ends, there will be a migration period (probably two weeks) in which the technical administrator user group will exist but normal administrators will still be able to edit CSS/JS. Please make sure your community is aware of this so they can add people to the technical administrator group during that time, and have a process for deciding who gets added. (What that migration process should be is left to each local community; it could be as simple as adding every administrator who asks for it.)"

"Also, please make sure your wiki has some documentation and election process for the new group past the migration period. Again, this could be as simple as asking newly elected administrators whether they also want to be technical administrators and whether they are familiar with Javascript and basic security practices. In any case, it is recommended to make the bar for technical admins at least as high as for admins (in terms of trust and user behavior), and maybe even higher (see the user group page for more advice)."

The consultation runs to 23 July and the migration period after that is expected to be 2 weeks. That gives us one month to decide a policy governing this group and implement it. I was thinking it would be helpful if people could express their initial ideas first, and then we can crystallise those comments into a formal policy proposal. BethNaught (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • My opinion: we should add "technical administrator" to the Restricted access policy separately from administrators. Access and revocations should be discussed in the same way as for other restricted access roles. Users should be able to make "rolled-up" applications, i.e. request adminship and techadminship at the same time. Likewise confirmations should occur together (as for bureaucrats, for example). At any rate, we should use this as a starting point for simplicity, and re-evaluate later on if desired. As for current admins, any active admin who has a record of editing site JS or CSS without problems should be grandfathered in without a discussion (although still subject to confirmation). BethNaught (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We have tried to keep things simple, non-hierarchical, where adminship is access to tools, not an elevated personal status. Though being aware of the issues that occurred which and has driven this technical change, the community should be more restrictive of that right. So, my thoughts are

technical
  1. rights in independent groups (eg. admin and techadmin)
  2. techadmin group can be assigned by local bureaucrat
    • noting that 'crats can now assign people to groups with an automatic expiry, so temporary assignations are easy and possible
  3. ability for local 'crats to remove techrights group directly
    • whereas we continue the existing practice of the standard removal of admin group to be on recommendation of 'crats to stewards
  4. specify the name that we wish to have in place for this group (per project page)
procedural
  1. yes, address function of both groups at Wikisource:adminship in different sections
  2. applications for adminship/techadminship would state the right(s) requested on application to, and consensus of, the community
  3. existing admins should identify if they require techrights, with justification, and be grandfathered
    • run process at Wikisource:Administrator (we can use global message bot to ping all admins on their talk pages), and no response means standard admin rights, 'crats retroactively able to assign
  4. enWS qualifications for assignation of the techadmin rights can be determined at our rate independent of above process as this is not a particularly active zone (bar to access should not be extreme IMNSHO)

billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it is the technical that needs to be resolved first, and we need to administrative to be in place prior to the switch being flicked after two weeks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

nested? templates[edit]

Is it problematic to have a block center template nested (if correct word) within another block center template? Please reference this page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's a problem in the technical sense, but given the length of this particular piece (relatively speaking), is there a reason for placing the entire content into a block center template? I'd use a layout 2 on the final copy and place just the short bit of text into a block center. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
My answer to your question is that I would like the whole text to be block centered. Remind me: Is layout 2 in a different font than default layout? My overall wish is for uniformity of formatting for the whole work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Re: Layout 2. This is the preferred formatting I use for drama. View Masterpieces of Greek Literature (1902)/Tyrtaeus to see what it looks like; the top portion is a paragraph of text, the bottom poetic portion is in a block center template. It sets the margins so that text width is restricted, and you don't get as much variation in line width, which helps for drama or lengthy poems that have shorter and longer lines. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I can see why you would use it, and will keep it in mind for future works. But I still am not keen on the difference in font style, and if nesting block center templates is not an issue techniclly, I think I'll keep things as is for now at least, although with an open mind :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't believe that it should be problematic to nest them, they are divs within divs, and should do their tasks suitably as long as the coding internally is compliant. They have been nested in other places without issue. What issue concerns you? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-28[edit]

23:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Global preferences are available[edit]

19:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Index view of page status—diff between logged in and logged out[edit]

For me, if I view the page Index:The empire and the century.djvu logged in I am seeing the page status with appropriate proofreading colours. Whereas if I am logged out, I see no page status colouring. Is that what others are seeing? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I saw no colours either way on desktop. However in mobile mode I see them both logged in and logged out. BethNaught (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I can confirm that for mobile. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

March of the Volunteers[edit]

  • Isn't this in the wrong language?
  • The lyrics are still copyrighted until January 2019 in China and Taiwan, and probably until January 2036 in the United States. Should this be deleted?

Jc86035 (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

the proper venue for that discussion is here c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:March of the Volunteers. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Book only available on Google Books[edit]

This pamphlet is relevant to my work and I'd like to set in motion a transcription project, but I find it on Google Books and nowhere else. I could ask the British Library for the PDF, but I hope that someone may have the ability to import the book from Google Books- I seem to remember there being a tool to do this, although I don't see it in the Help pages. Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the Book Uploader Bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
If you would he happy with the PDF, you can just download it from GBooks itself—from the cog menu. BethNaught (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: c:File:Description and Use of a New Celestial Planisphere.pdf -- Hrishikes (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Converted Template:custom rule[edit]

I have converted Template:custom rule from a table-based template to a div-based template as it wasn't centering in mobile view. I built test cases and checked a range of uses and it looks fine. If anyone finds examples of it breaking then please let me know on the template's talk page adding me as a ping. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

image centering in mobile fixed too[edit]

On the same note, via a phabricator ticket, Londonjackbooks and I have had the universal mobile skin fixed so it centres images where wikicoded to be centred, it had been left aligning them. Another little tick feels good. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Good news! Mobile view looked very ugly before, I'm glad it's sorted! Jpez (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jpez: nobody had said anything so it has been unaddressed because of that, and for how long??? Can I encourage people to identify the ugly bits and put them before the community for our attention. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Consultation on the creation of a separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS[edit]

See #"Technical administrators" are coming: we need a plan above. BethNaught (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

What questions concerning the strategy process do you have?[edit]

Hi!

I'm Tar Lócesilion, a Polish Wikipedia admin and a member of Wikimedia Polska. Last year, I worked for Wikimedia Foundation as a liaison between communities and the Movement Strategy core team. My task was to ensure that all online communities were aware of the movement-wide strategy discussion. This year, my task similar. Phase II of the strategy process was launched in April. Currently, future Working Groups members are being selected, and related pages on Meta-Wiki are being designed.

I’d like to learn what questions concerning the strategy process would you like to be answered on the FAQ page? Please answer here, on my talk page, or on a dedicated talk page on Meta-Wiki. Thanks!

If you have any questions or concerns, please, do ask!

Thanks, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

author link[edit]

When is using {{al}} problematic, and when is it not? Or is it just a matter of personal style preference? In the past, maybe some years ago, I had used the template, but had it changed by someone to [[Author:]] (I have since forgot who, maybe @Billinghurst:?) I meant to ask why, but never did. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The name {{al}} does not have clarity to its name, so has those issues, and next to zero people use the full {{author link}} version—count looks to be 3,556 for former, and 51 for latter. So it lacks some clarity for namespace work, and it will fail when used when we have non-personal authors where the pages are in the portal namespace.

If I replaced it, it was probably due to the template not being readily bot'able compared to standard wikilinking to the author namespace, and it was easier to make a change that way for what I was doing. Not certain that I particularly recall doing it, though often it is easier to do a preliminary substitution on something, then linearly apply a regex to a standard replacement than code a more complex regex to take in all the permutations and combinations. [Well for my grade of regex'ing]. Similarly if we are doing a deep search for author links, something like Special:Search/insource:"Author:William Shakespeare" is far better than trying to faff around with trying something like Special:Search/insource:"{{al|William Shakespeare}}" and then the other form of the template; with all the implicit search weaknesses. One area where having one form would just be easier, though not one where it becomes impossible to work, just a rise in the level of difficulty. Waving a magic wand, and I would subst: the lot of them every so often, though not to the point that I am going to have the discussion/argument/... — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Saxon character set?[edit]

Anyone aware of a Saxon character set? At Page:Surrey Archaeological Collections Volume 1.djvu/312 I have characters which need setting into the unusual. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

w:Insular script -- Hrishikes (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Which then leads to MUFI character recommendation v. 4.0 (MUFI = medieval unicode font initiative) which indicates that they are not current characters within Unicode. Anyone have thoughts on how they would like to see them transcribed? Just standard, or do we want to try to dig through Template:ULS -> mw:Universal Language Selector? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
ULS is already implemented via {{insular}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-29[edit]

16:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

ia upload generated scans seem always to be off[edit]

When the OCR is not available to use, getting the uploaded OCR'd via IA-upload tool seems to always generate OCR which is off by one in the beginning and probably missing pages as the scan progresses.

I am not sure if it is something I am doing or not doing.... If it was my software, I would be suspicious of the part that drops the first page except that does not seem to be the direction that the scans are off.

How do I progress from here?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that under some conditions IA-upload tool fails. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T194861. The djvu file needs to be manually fixed.— Mpaa (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ebook-only tag?[edit]

The ws-noexport tag works well enough to exclude parts of a page from the ebook (and print) version. I'm looking for something to achieve the opposite, so that some content will only show up in the epub/pdf (this would be helpful to link pages within the ebook, among other things). {{Only in print}} promises to achieve this, but it doesn't seem to be working.--Underlying lk (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Translation published before the original work[edit]

May I ask somebody who is familiar with US copyright to look at this case? Is this book OK for Wikisource? Ankry (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on that discussion, it should be ok under {{PD-US-no-notice}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else having personal common.js issues?[edit]

I am having failure in the operation of my scripts from my common.js page. They worked a couple of days ago, and fail today, and it looks as though they are just not seen, as I can move them to my global.js page and they work fine. Is anyone else having issues? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup scripts or other? I still have not eliminated redundancies from transferring my data to global—tried my scripts from here and they seem to work ok. All my customized edit buttons work ok as well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure if this is related, but yesterday I would occasionally have the software render labels in Polish instead of English, e.g. on Index pages. The effect was not limited to Wikisource, but on Wikisource a hard purge solved the problem each time it occurred. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, sounds like I have a personal issue, though cannot say why. Reverting to a point in time hasn't helped. I must be missing something obvious. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

H. M. Elliot[edit]

I think it will be benificial if H. M. Elliot's work "The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians" is covered and made available here. It is one of the most authoritative, even if quite biased, source for history of Muslim rule of India to early colonisation period. The authors are long dead and the publisher no longer exist. It was published first in UK. Any advice on how to go about it will be helpful. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

See Help:Beginner's_guide_to_adding_texts.— Mpaa (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)